Justice M. Nagaprasanna dismissed petitions filed by Ozone Urbana, its promoter Vasudevan Sathyamoorthy, his wife Prua Vasudevan and others, rejecting their request to overturn FIRs lodged by aggrieved buyers and two Enforcement Case Information Reports (ECIRs) registered in 2022 and 2025.
The court noted a recurring pattern in the complaints: homebuyers were lured by attractive subvention schemes, tripartite agreements and promises of timely possession, only to receive no flats or refunds after paying substantial advances.
One complainant recounted that a flat booked in 2017 was sold to another buyer in 2021 without the original purchaser’s knowledge, illustrating the alleged practice of selling promised units to third parties while retaining the money.
The judge described the allegations as extending “far beyond the realm of a mere contractual default,” emphasizing that the money was received, the property not delivered, and the loan burden remained with the homebuyer.
The developers argued that the ED’s money‑laundering proceedings were illegal because the underlying FIRs had been stayed or quashed, but the court rejected this contention, pointing out that the 2025 ECIR also relied on a CBI FIR prompted by the Supreme Court to investigate a suspected collusive nexus between builders and financial institutions.
According to the CBI FIR, Ozone Urbana allegedly conspired with officials of Indiabulls Housing Finance (now Sammaan Capital) to offer a “No Pre‑EMI till delivery of possession” scheme, resulting in loans being disbursed directly to the builder without adequate due diligence and later defaulting on pre‑EMI payments.
The Enforcement Directorate’s provisional attachment order, issued on 4 October 2025, seized assets worth ₹423.38 crore, including unsold inventory and land parcels belonging to the company and its promoters.
The ED alleges that of the roughly ₹927.22 crore collected from more than 1,351 homebuyers, a substantial portion was siphoned to group companies and personal accounts, leaving buyers with unpaid EMIs for flats that were never delivered.
The court underscored the gravity of economic offences, noting their impact on a large number of stakeholders who invest life savings in the hope of home ownership.